Holes in Big Bang

[Monketi Ghost]

If Wikipedia is "someone".

 

[Singularitarian]

I don't even trust that.

 

[Molinaro]

You keep repeating that, no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not true.

Dogma, faith, religious belief..

Funny how aptly they describe themself when using those words to insult accepted science.

 

[elbe]

I think we need to keep an open mind, especially with something as controversial as the BB theory.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean ignoring the math, and it appears that the existing model has the math on its side.

 

[Singularitarian]

That's arguable. Many parts of the math is simply needed anyway. But you will find most of it is not consequential on nucleosynthesis according to big bang, for you can have a steady-state model where many of the idea's of big bang are ot needed. It just so happens that we currently believe the universe is expanding, if not acelerating. So whether or not the math works for big bang, if an error such as large voids which are not predicted by the model, then the model has a major problem. If it cannot explain what is currently observable, then the theory has been very decieving.

 

[elbe]

EU theory isn't even a creationist theory, nor is it related to religion in any way.

I think you missed my point. Several of the arguments I've seen in this (and at least one other) thread against the existing model sound like claims made by the ID proponents, and that's not a good sign. Their "scientific" claims aren't religious, but just anti-evolution (because of religion, but they don't always like to say that). It almost seems like being anti-big bang is more important than providing a useful, and sound, replacement.

 

[elbe]

That's arguable. Many parts of the math is simply needed anyway. But you will find most of it is not consequential on nucleosynthesis according to big bang, for you can have a steady-state model where many of the idea's of big bang are ot needed. It just so happens that we currently believe the universe is expanding, if not acelerating. So whether or not the math works for big bang, if an error such as large voids which are not predicted by the model, then the model has a major problem. If it cannot explain what is currently observable, then the theory has been very decieving.

Does the existing big bang model just not predict it, or does it specifically predict it wouldn't occur? That seems, to me, to be an important distinction.

 

[Singularitarian]

It predicts the voids occur, but nothing on the scale of what was observed was ever expected to even exist! That means the big bang does not predict the correct time-scale it allowed for the early matter pre-inflationary phase to clump together and mingle accordingly.

 

[sol invictus]

Does the existing big bang model just not predict it, or does it specifically predict it wouldn't occur? That seems, to me, to be an important distinction.

1) The void in question probably does not exist.

2) Within the concordance cosmological model, the probability of finding a void that size within our Hubble volume has not (to my knowledge) been carefully evaluated. The statistics involved are probably significantly non-Gaussian, which means the analysis is not simple. One cannot simply extrapolate from the statistics of smaller voids.

3) If the void exists and is very improbable in concordance cosmology, that poses a challenge to the specific values of the parameters in the model (which were fixed with other observations). It does not challenge the big bang more generally. All big bang models make large voids at late times, with a size and distribution that depends on various parameters and the time.

 

[Singularitarian]

1) The void in question probably does not exist.

2) Within the concordance cosmological model, the probability of finding a void that size within our Hubble volume has not (to my knowledge) been carefully evaluated. The statistics involved are probably significantly non-Gaussian, which means the analysis is not simple. One cannot simply extrapolate from the statistics of smaller voids.

3) If the void exists and is very improbable in concordance cosmology, that poses a challenge to the specific values of the parameters in the model (which were fixed with other observations). It does not challenge the big bang more generally. All big bang models make large voids at late times, with a size and distribution that depends on various parameters and the time.

Though to my current knowledge, their are fine-tining arguements for the point in which inflation could occur to present the current observable universe. However, these voids can only be created pre-inflationary phase, so you cannot really account for any more time scales than what is currently allowed, and thus voids of that magnitude where not ever to be expected to exist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean ignoring the math, and it appears that the existing model has the math on its side.

It may have "math" on it's side, but certainly not "physics", and the math is demonstrably wrong. In physical reality, inflation has no effect on anything so forget ever having physics on it's side. There is no way to verify or falsify the math either, other than to look at what it "predicts" and doesn't predict. What it doesn't "predict" are holes of that size, or "dark flows" of any sort and therefore it fails the physics test and the math test.

Now of course nothing prevents these folks from redoing their math to make it match observation again, but then how in the world can we ever falsify something like that? There is no way to falsify inflation as these holes and flows demonstrate. They'll just keep tweaking the math in an ad hoc manner since they don't have to physically demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. There is nothing useful about the math that can actually "tested" in any empirical way, and what math there is right now doesn't jive with the physics. At the moment the math is actually *NOT* on there side as those papers from the opening post demonstrate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think you missed my point. Several of the arguments I've seen in this (and at least one other) thread against the existing model sound like claims made by the ID proponents, and that's not a good sign. Their "scientific" claims aren't religious, but just anti-evolution (because of religion, but they don't always like to say that). It almost seems like being anti-big bang is more important than providing a useful, and sound, replacement.

I respectfully disagree. EU/PC theory is in fact a "useful" and "sound" replacement cosmology theory. It makes a whole host of useful predictions that are born out by observation like that high speed solar wind, and those discharge events in the solar atmosphere. It doesn't make predictions about the beginning of time, or any sort of creation event if that is what you require, but why should it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

1) The void in question probably does not exist.

2) Within the concordance cosmological model, the probability of finding a void that size within our Hubble volume has not (to my knowledge) been carefully evaluated. The statistics involved are probably significantly non-Gaussian, which means the analysis is not simple. One cannot simply extrapolate from the statistics of smaller voids.

3) If the void exists and is very improbable in concordance cosmology, that poses a challenge to the specific values of the parameters in the model (which were fixed with other observations). It does not challenge the big bang more generally. All big bang models make large voids at late times, with a size and distribution that depends on various parameters and the time.

How about those "dark flows" sol? Where was that ever "predicted" by inflation?

 

[Ziggurat]

It may have "math" on it's side, but certainly not "physics", and the math is demonstrably wrong.

And yet, you can't demonstrate how it's wrong.

There is no way to verify or falsify the math either, other than to look at what it "predicts" and doesn't predict.

Well, no. The math can be verified or falsified by examining the math. The theory is what must be examined via the predictions it makes. But does it even register that you've just contradicted your earlier claim that the math is demonstrably wrong?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You keep repeating that, no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not true.

Show me one inflation theory that actually "predicted" (no postdictions please) "dark flows" of that magnitude sol.

Here's a decent popular article that refutes your assertion:...

"Most cosmologists have embraced inflation since it was proposed in 1980, because the model beautifully explains profound mysteries about our universe, such as why it has so few magnetic monopoles (hypothetical particles with only a north or south pole)..."

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did! I don't need an explanation as to what something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. This is like claiming that the reason there are no unicorns on Earth today is because the invisible elves killed them off. What a stupid peace of irrational logic.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Dogma, faith, religious belief..

Funny how aptly they describe themself when using those words to insult accepted science.

...so dumb it's not even wrong.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That's arguable. Many parts of the math is simply needed anyway. But you will find most of it is not consequential on nucleosynthesis according to big bang, for you can have a steady-state model where many of the idea's of big bang are ot needed. It just so happens that we currently believe the universe is expanding, if not acelerating. So whether or not the math works for big bang, if an error such as large voids which are not predicted by the model, then the model has a major problem. If it cannot explain what is currently observable, then the theory has been very decieving.

(bold added)

Have you been reading the posts, by others, in this thread?

If so, why do you statements like this, which are so blatantly false?

If not, what is your purpose in posting here?

Of course, it's entirely possible that you *have* been reading what others have posted, but misunderstood something (badly); if so, why not ask for clarification (rather than make bald assertions)?

Let's also remind ourselves of this little exchange, shall we?

--------------------------------------------------------

S: I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

DRD: And I, in turn, was kinda hoping my word would be taken for truth; I wouldn't lie about something like this.

Next?

--------------------------------------------------------

Straight question for you Sing: how many of the >50 documents which cite the 2007 ApJ paper by Rudnick et al. ("Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot") have you read?

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did!

They would violate one of Maxwell's equations if they did. But that equation can be trivially reformulated to include monopoles. It is only written the way it is now because we have not yet observed any monopoles, but that cannot and does not constitute a proof that they do not exist. If they do exist, then that equation as it is written now is simply wrong, and would get modified accordingly. Why is that something you consider impossible? There are really very few laws of physics that are so fundamental that most physicists think they cannot be broken, and (aside from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which YOU seem to have problems with) they are all conservation laws. There's no conservation law prohibiting magnetic monopoles.

But it's quite ironic for someone so obsessed with the distinction between physics and math to rely so blindly on math without even understanding it.

 

[sol invictus]

Show me one inflation theory that actually "predicted" (no postdictions please) "dark flows" of that magnitude sol.

Goalpost shift. From "dark flows falsify inflation" to "inflation didn't predict that particular observation". It didn't predict what I had for breakfast, either.

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did! I don't need an explanation as to what something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. This is like claiming that the reason there are no unicorns on Earth today is because the invisible elves killed them off. What a stupid peace of irrational logic.

MM: Inflation makes no predictions!!!
si: Here's an article describing some CMB predictions inflation made long before they were spectacularly confirmed.
MM: Monopoles!

This is really boring.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And yet, you can't demonstrate how it's wrong.

Baloney.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405341v2.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/276176main_ApJLetters_20Oct2008.pdf

Show me one inflation theory that ever actually "predicted" dark flows.

Well, no. The math can be verified or falsified by examining the math. The theory is what must be examined via the predictions it makes.

Fine. Either way your theory fails.

But does it even register that you've just contradicted your earlier claim that the math is demonstrably wrong?

Let's put it this way. Your math doesn't reflect what we actually observe in nature. Those dark flows don't jive with your math.